Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on July 31, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2023; August 14, 2025; October 20, 2025; November 25, 2025 and December 18, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 9-20 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 9 and 15) recites the following steps:
A method of managing vouchers, the method comprising:
generating a voucher, the voucher indicating that a first entity has authority
obtaining first transaction data, the first transaction data indicating a change in authority from the first entity to a second entity;
obtaining second transaction data, the second transaction data indicating a change in authority from the second entity to a third entity;
updating the voucher using at least the first transaction data and the second transaction data to obtain a final voucher, the final voucher indicating a final entity with authority
initiating onboarding by an orchestrator designated by the final entity using the final voucher.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) managing vouchers that change authority from one entity to another entity (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 9 and 15 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
for a data processing system
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing vouchers
A data processing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing vouchers
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 3-7, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, 8, 10, 12, 17 and 18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a system
signing system
second system
a data processing system
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saif (2014/0359295) in view of Scott (2016/0335629).
Saif discloses a method of managing vouchers, the method comprising:
A data processing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing vouchers, the operations comprising (Sai [0096][0097]):
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing vouchers, the operations comprising (Saif [0045]):
obtaining first transaction data for the data processing system, the first transaction data indicating a change in authority over the data processing system from the first entity to a second entity (Saif [0007][0017]); See at least “method of transferring the control of a security module from a first entity to a second entity…”
updating the voucher using at least the first transaction data and the second transaction data to obtain a final voucher, the final voucher indicating a final entity with authority over the data processing system (Saif [0067]); See at least “at the end of this updating step E14, the control of the module has indeed been transferred from the first entity 11 to the second entity 12.”
initiating onboarding of the data processing system by an orchestrator designated by the final entity using the final voucher (Saif [0110]). See at least “ the program is downloaded [onboarded] into the equipment containing the module, after the equipment has been released [authority transferred].
Saif does not explicitly teach all of the limitations of the independent claim, Scott teaches:
generating a voucher for a data processing system, the voucher indicating that a first entity has authority over the data processing system (Scott [0042]); See at least “an ownership log of holding transfer certificates, wherein each holding transfer certificate contains data associated with an asset and is recorded against a public key of the owner of the holding; and a transaction processor configured to transfer ownership of holdings.”
obtaining second transaction data for the data processing system, the second transaction data indicating a change in authority over the data processing system from the second entity to a third entity (Scott [0042]); See at least “receive a second block of data digitally signed by a second owner and having a second holding transfer certificate digitally signed by the second owner, the second block of data describing a third holding offered by the second owner in exchange for a requested fourth holding;”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing vouchers, as taught by Saif, the method of generating the voucher by indicating the current authority, as taught by Scott, to reduce the risks associated with transferring rights (Scott [0001]).
Claims 2, 10 and 16
Modified Saif and Scott discloses the following limitations. Modified Saif further teaches:
wherein the first transaction data is obtained from a system managed by the first entity (Saif [0007]). See at least “first security domain [system] controlled by the first entity by means of at least one first secret control key specific to the first entity…”
Claims 3, 11 and 17
Modified Saif and Scott discloses the following limitations. Modified Scott further teaches:
wherein the first transaction data indicates a sale of the data processing system to the second entity from the first entity (Scott [0149]). Where the user is a first entity and the new owner is the second entity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing vouchers, as taught by Saif, the method of generating the voucher by indicating the current authority, as taught by Scott, to reduce the risks associated with transferring rights (Scott [0001]).
Claims 4 12 and 18
Modified Saif and Scott discloses the following limitations. Modified Saif further teaches:
wherein the second transaction data is obtained from a second system managed by the second entity (Saif [0007]). See at least “a second security domain, said second domain including both a certificate of a public key of a controlling authority and also a private key of the controlling authority.”
Claims 5, 13 and 19
Modified Saif and Scott discloses the following limitations. Modified Scott further teaches:
wherein updating the voucher comprises: generating a certificate comprising: a delegation statement; a public key for the final entity; and a signature generated with a private key for the first entity (Scott [0056][0269]). Where the details of rights are the delegation statement. See [0042] for public key and see [0044] for private key.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing vouchers, as taught by Saif, the method of generating the voucher by indicating the current authority, as taught by Scott, to reduce the risks associated with transferring rights (Scott [0001]).
Claims 6, 14 and 20
Modified Saif and Scott discloses the following limitations. Modified Scott further teaches:
wherein updating the voucher comprises: generating a first certificate comprising: a first delegation statement; a first public key for the second entity; and a first signature generated with a first private key for the first entity (Scott [0056] [0269]). Where the details of rights are the delegation statement. See [0042] for public key and see [0044] for private key.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing vouchers, as taught by Saif, the method of generating the voucher by indicating the current authority, as taught by Scott, to reduce the risks associated with transferring rights (Scott [0001]).
Claim 7
Modified Saif and Scott discloses the following limitations. Modified Scott further teaches:
wherein updating the voucher further comprises: obtaining a second certificate comprising: a second delegation statement; a second public key for the third entity; and a second signature generated with a second private key for the second entity (Scott [0056] [0269]). Where the details of rights are the delegation statement. See [0042] for public key and see [0044] for private key.
EXAMINER NOTE: DUPLICATION OF PARTS: While the reference does not expressly teach a second delegation statement; a second public key for the third entity; and a second signature generated with a second private key for the second entity, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Duplication of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Saif discloses a method of transferring the control of a security module from a first entity to a second entity, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that obtaining a second delegation statement; a second public key for the third entity; and a second signature generated with a second private key for the second entity would not have any unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate in addition to the first transaction, a second delegation statement; a second public key for the third entity; and a second signature generated with a second private key for the second entity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.B rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as duplication of parts, which improve managing vouchers in the system of Saif to provide a second delegation statement; a second public key for the third entity; and a second signature generated with a second private key for the second entity.
Claim 8
Modified Saif and Scott discloses the following limitations. Modified Scott further teaches:
wherein obtaining the second certificate comprises: obtaining the second signature using a signing system designated by the second entity (Scott [0048]). See at least “the holding transfer certificates may be digitally signed by an issuer as the initial owner of a holding.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing vouchers, as taught by Saif, the method of generating the voucher by indicating the current authority, as taught by Scott, to reduce the risks associated with transferring rights (Scott [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626